out of curiosity, what concerns? same ones as always?
I assume that they are the same concerns as always, but since no-one took the time to discuss their concerns with me, I can't say for sure. I did manage to sit Don A. down for a few minutes to discuss things, and I got some information about what kind of security assurances the EC would like to see, but since Don is not an authority on the subject, he made it clear that his word wasn't final (i.e. actionable).
Nevertheless, I am in the process of obtaining an independent security assessment, which I hope will satisfy the EC's requirements*.
Originally Posted by noodle
in addition, this might be a more radical move, but has there been any consideration to making an offer to peet to outright purchase askfred and make it a USFA property, thereby allowing internal control of all sensetive data? (if he was willing)
Last year when I first discussed the sharing of fencer data with Michael Massik, I suggested that FRED could become part of the USFA, with very little real-world change in the state of affairs. (Meaning it could be a largely legal distinction, with not much change in how things are run day-to-day).
He wasn't interested.
I have hope that with the upcoming changes at all levels of USFA governance/operation (Officers, EC, BoD, ED...) the USFA and FRED will get along better.
-P
*It occurs to me to wonder if such security certification has been obtained by eRSVP, the current vendor for online USFA membership, or for that matter, if the various email systems through which the USFA sends fencer data to division and section officers have been similarly certified secure.
I'm not given to interpret halves of conversations, typically.
But since you asked, it looks like you sent an initial email asking for information that was on the website, and Mrs. Merritt sent back a link to the top page of the BoD archive. Evidently you sent some form of additional email that elicited a reply, but in the absence of the initial email, it's impossible to determine fully what the reply meant.
Assuming, arguendo, that your email requested the files directly from Mrs. Merritt along with a comment on the number of files being requested, and that her reply indicated that she did not have them immediately available, and further assuming that you are presenting the unavailability of the files from Mrs. Merritt as some form of evidence that the files were not available on the website, I would point out that while Mrs. Merritt, as the current secretary, has the responsibility for maintaining the records of the Association, it is my understanding that she has nothing to do with the maintenance of the website, so I fail to see how correlation can be made between what she could or could not provide by direct request versus what is available through the website.
I repeatedly looked for the minutes on line. They were not there. I contacted via email the USFA Secretary whose responsibility was to keep and submit the minutes. The email exchange took place on June 16, 2008. After sending me the link (which I had previously checked) Mrs Merritt went on line and agreed that the minutes I requested were not available.
Those are the facts. You can massage them any way you like, but I provided reasonable documentation.
I repeatedly looked for the minutes on line. They were not there. I contacted via email the USFA Secretary whose responsibility was to keep and submit the minutes. The email exchange took place on June 16, 2008. After sending me the link (which I had previously checked) Mrs Merritt went on line and agreed that the minutes I requested were not available.
Those are the facts. You can massage them any way you like, but I provided reasonable documentation.
Where is yours?
The fact that Arc's personal files have them dated as downloaded in May? An inability to use the USFA website and find the files doesn't mean they weren't posted.
I repeatedly looked for the minutes on line. They were not there.
Interesting how your experience is contrary to the experience of everyone else. I wonder why this is? Do you have problems using the web? Do you need a remedial course in web surfing? I believe you're out of New York, right? I'm sure there are a number of excellent tutors you can find there to help you!
That's it, I'm done with the discussion forums on F.net. It's had its uses, but the ideologues, ranters, and "experts" have drowned too many of the conversations. I'm changing my password to something random and never logging in again.
"Sometimes we, as coaches, get into that dictator mode where you just tell and you don't listen and you don't try to understand them." Tom Izzo, Mich. St.
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
Originally Posted by EC Action Items July 4, 2008
The EC approved the following action items:
...
* Formed a disciplinary panel to investigate allegations of sexual harassment by Eric Dew.
You know, most people just don't sexually harass people.
But you would think that after being caught for it, and banned from the USFA for a year, that you would either Stop sexually harassing people (and continually making lewd comments on a message board) OR at the least, go somewhere else and sexually harass people.
edew plz stop k?
"Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box"
-Albert Einstein, in a letter to Erwin Schrödinger
I repeatedly looked for the minutes on line. They were not there. I contacted via email the USFA Secretary whose responsibility was to keep and submit the minutes. The email exchange took place on June 16, 2008. After sending me the link (which I had previously checked) Mrs Merritt went on line and agreed that the minutes I requested were not available.
Those are the facts. You can massage them any way you like, but I provided reasonable documentation.
Where is yours?
Setting aside relevancy and the relative abilities of either you or Mrs. Merritt to successfully navigate usfencing.org, the emails you have cited are reasonable documentation that you requested the minutes from Mrs. Merritt, but of little else, especially the assertion that Mrs. Merritt "agreed that the minutes [you] requested were not available."
And my documentation is the attached window snapshot.
Setting aside relevancy and the relative abilities of either you or Mrs. Merritt to successfully navigate usfencing.org, the emails you have cited are reasonable documentation that you requested the minutes from Mrs. Merritt, but of little else, especially the assertion that Mrs. Merritt "agreed that the minutes [you] requested were not available.
And my documentation is the attached window snapshot.
I'm sure he'll argue next that you modified the file attributes...
That's it, I'm done with the discussion forums on F.net. It's had its uses, but the ideologues, ranters, and "experts" have drowned too many of the conversations. I'm changing my password to something random and never logging in again.
Setting aside relevancy and the relative abilities of either you or Mrs. Merritt to successfully navigate usfencing.org, the emails you have cited are reasonable documentation that you requested the minutes from Mrs. Merritt, but of little else, especially the assertion that Mrs. Merritt "agreed that the minutes [you] requested were not available."
On the issue of whether Mrs. Merritt was aware of what was actually up--her statement in her June 16 email (as reported by Heretic) was: "all the minutes except for February 2008, which have not been approved, should be on the USFA website. The can be found under forms and documents."
Which seems odd since the draft minutes from Feb. 2008 were posted on March 24 (as discussed here on March 25th and April 1).
That said, the general release of draft minutes prior to approval was a new thing, rather than standard procedure, so may merely have been misremembered.
The links do at least indicate that _I_ was able to find the minutes on the USFA website several months ago. :)
-B
"Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
[Maybe the voter turnout from the recent election reflects the apathy of a disenfranchized membership. Who knows? Maybe the USOC might just infer that since the membership doesn't seem to care, they can have their way with the USFA.[/QUOTE]
The voter turnout was, based on my informal survey of people I know at various tournaments and SN, low because (in order of most responses 1) people were afraid to vote for fear of retaliation 2) many fencers who did care, or had parents who cared were disenfranchised by the way the votes were allotted - eg youth fencers parents who did not pay to join did not get a ballot and neither did their kids thus removing a large of block of people who really did care but had no way to be heard 3) apathy based on the general lack of attentiveness of the usfa to issues and problems and the conviction that the nomcom slate would win no matter who voted for what and 4) various excuses like I lost the ballot, I can't find my usfa number and other lame stuff.
Mind you this is informal, I spoke to only about 50 people but I tried to include coaches, 'elite' fencers, hs fencers, div fencers, vets and people who don't go to nat'l tournaments at all. I asked only did you vote and if not why not. I suppose this is all old news to everyone here, but I found it really discouraging.
I'm not so sure that the voter turnout indicates anything in particular. I've been involved with several nonprofit organizations over the years, including one which suffered from what I now think of as a "flesh-eating virus," which involved a recall election, nonprofit attorneys, complaints to the state AG's office, audits, and months of other fun and games. Getting enough votes to meet the quorum requirements was always suspenseful, and even during the most controversial periods, barely 10% of the membership voted in elections. Most members seemed to view controversies, however crucial they seemed to the organization's activists, as "mere bickering." Rather than get involved, most simply chose not to renew their memberships.
The vast majority of people who join organizations aren't interested in being activists--they just want an organization that provides the services they joined for. (They just rely on the rest of us who are foolish enough to enjoy our activism to make things work for them.)
You know, most people just don't sexually harass people.
But you would think that after being caught for it, and banned from the USFA for a year, that you would either Stop sexually harassing people (and continually making lewd comments on a message board) OR at the least, go somewhere else and sexually harass people.
edew plz stop k?
It would be nice if I knew what that was all about.
Originally Posted by noodle
![KShan5[PrFC]'s Avatar](customavatars/avatar1334_12.gif "KShan5[PrFC]'s Avatar"){kind=avatar}
![Send a message via Yahoo to KShan5[PrFC]](images/misc/im_yahoo.gif)
